VNS Exclusives Archives

They took our children

by Brian Christine

Veritas News Service - Exclusive, September 7, 2001, Grants Pass, Oregon -- I left my wife Ruth and 3 Daughters Bethany, Lydia and Miriam in our Motorhome to prepare and eat lunch while I went into the library to use their computer to conduct the internet business I tend to daily. I entered the library, got on a computer in the back section of the library and began my usual work.

In the middle of my work, I noticed my wife and Three Daughters coming toward me, somewhat out of breath and very distressed. She said to me "I don't know what to do, these police want to talk to the girls and I know they have no right". Then two armed officers in blue uniform approached me cutting my wife off. I told them I was busy doing my work. They motioned me back behind some bookshelves. They told me there had been an anonymous phone call from a man who reported a dehydrated appearing child. I said "So what does that have to do with me?" He responded saying; "We have to check out situations like this in case there's something wrong. We need to talk to the children." I said, "Go ahead and talk to them, they're right there!" He said that he wanted an SCF worker to talk to them. I asked him what SCF had to do with this anonymous phone call? He said that SCF needed to see the children. I told him "No Way! All this over an anonymous phone call? SCF has absolutely no authority over me or my wife or Daughters, I never agreed to be under their jurisdiction and their rules conflict with and usurp my religious beliefs!"

Then he asked me for my ID. I asked him why he needed to see my ID. "To verify who you are", he said. After some debate, I reluctantly gave him my Indiana Drivers License. I told the officer how embarrassing it was to have two armed and uniformed police crashing into the library and swarming around me like some kind of criminal in front of My Daughters and the Public, all over an anonymous phone call.

I decided to walk out to Our Home with my Wife and Daughters. The police walked along side me as if escorting me. I ushered my wife and Three Daughters into Our Home and I myself also entered, beginning to make preparations to leave. More police cars came onto the scene and blocked us in by forming a loose barricade with their cars. There were no breaks in the cars large enough for our Motorhome to fit through, so I knew we were not free to leave.

There were at least 5 armed and uniformed officers, one armed but un-uniformed police detective and at least 3 SCF workers scurrying around our bus. I did not shut the door of Our Home because I believed they would use this as an excuse of claiming I was hiding or retrieving a weapon and serious problems might develop. I did not feel it would be wise or prudent to provoke any possible corrupt police officers by closing My door, especially with My Daughters present and having heard stories about corruption in Grants Pass Law Enforcement.

I ignored the police in my doorway while I put my belongings away. All of the officers were walking around Our Home inspecting it, chuckling, and peering through windows. It looked like a SWAT operation. I was disgusted at the way these officers of the law were conducting themselves. I heard SCF agents talking of "Anger Management Classes", "Nutrition Courses" and "Child Custody".

Eventually, the armed but un-uniformed police detective, Dan Evans, came to the door of Our Home and began talking to me. He told me his name and that he was an investigator. Since he was with the police I believed he would be reasonable to talk to because I didn't believe that the police would have a vested interest in removing Sons and Daughters from Homes and breaking up Families. I clearly told him that I would talk to him alone and do all things through him. I refused to talk to SCF and repeated myself many times on this point.

I told him that we were traveling and that we are residents of Indiana as verified by our Indiana driver licenses and the Indiana license plate on our Motorhome. I asked him to produce the contract that I had signed which placed me under his jurisdiction or under SCF's jurisdiction. He could not produce it. Then he asked me if I was a Constitutionalist? I wondered if he might have prejudice against Constitutionalists and I replied "No, but I do know I have rights and you took an oath to uphold them". He said "That's OK, we respect that you don't recognize our jurisdiction, but that's something you'll have to deal with later in the courts."

I asked him what rights I had and he remained silent. I asked other officers what rights I had and they all remained silent. I asked what courses of action I could take and they remained silent. They withheld from me the very information that they took an oath to protect and serve me with. They denied me proper counsel, instead giving me fraudulent lies and threats.

The Detective told me that he was running out of time for doing this the peaceful way. A man wearing a white shirt and an arm brace on his left arm who had been peering in the front window now spoke up and said that the detective was doing me a favor and that if it would have been him doing the investigation, he would have just arrested me and thrown me in jail to begin with and then he would have taken the kids. This man's words and behavior disgusted me. I couldn't believe what was happening. I was wishing I had a cell phone so I could call in some friend or anyone to come and help us while we were being surrounded and interrogated by all these armed men.

The detective told me I needed to start cooperating. I asked him what would happen if I didn't cooperate and didn't let anyone in. He said, "Well, we'll have to arrest you and drag the kids out kicking and screaming if we have to, but we don't like to do it that way." I was afraid and began to feel nauseous. I realized we were outnumbered by the armed men surrounding us, denying us any help or counsel. The Detective's persistent hounding and threats made it clear we were not free to go. I turned to my wife and asked her what she thought we should do?

The detective's words had cut me deep and after more than an hour of these people's constant hounding, I didn't know what to do. I couldn't bear the thought of my Daughters being forcefully removed and I began to listen to these people's lies. They told me that they had the girls' best interest at heart. I could identify with this because my girls mean more to me than anything. I believed them. They told me that they wanted to help us out with food and money. I began to believe what they were telling us, that we had no choice in the matter, we had to submit and let them come into Our Home and interrogate our children. I still didn't trust them but I was feeling ill and had difficulty thinking properly. The whole experience was humiliating and degrading. My Wife looked at me and said, "I guess we have to let them in".

I repeated to the Detective that he was the only one I was going to go through. He said that SCF had to talk to the girls alone. I said "No Way!" I never leave my girls alone with strangers. I told him he alone could go back and talk to them. I couldn't understand why he wanted to talk to them alone? He asked me to leave but I refused.

Ruth was ordered to remove herself from Our Home while I sat in the front seat of the Motorhome. Fully armed, the Detective questioned My Daughters in the back. I put my head down on the steering wheel and wished it all away. I was utterly disgusted with what was happening and I asked myself, "What are they doing? Why is this stranger asking My Daughters about things that don't matter?

He did not seem concerned about giving any of My Daughters water or food. However, he immediately focused on Lydia who had a bruise and a band-aid on her forehead. I heard the detective ask her questions like "Who gave you your boo-boo?" and "Did daddy push you down?" There were many leading questions asked, some of which I will list here: "Are you hungry?" "Was Daddy angry" "Did daddy give you this bruise?" "Who hurt you?" "How did you get this bruise?" "Did daddy hurt you?" At first none of the girls would speak to him, but after a while My Middle Daughter of 3 years began to talk because the detective directed his questioning to her alone. She is unable to speak full and proper sentences and does not have a proper concept of time other than today and yesterday. An occurrence 2 years ago happened yesterday to in her mind.

These are the replies she gave during the interrogation: "Mommy was angry" "I peed my bed" "Got blood on it" "God did it" "Babba pushed me down". From these statements from a 3 year-old child, Detective Dan Evans had his evidence to charge me with a felony of assault 3 against My Own Daughter Lydia.

After he was done fishing he pulled me outside and told me, " It doesn't matter what you say, because Your Daughter has already incriminated you, but I want to hear your side of the story". He continued saying, "We all make mistakes, just a few hours ago I was on the phone with my son and I got angry with him and started yelling at him because of what he was doing. I was wrong to shout at him like that in anger." I then told him that I would speak to him as a man, but not legally. I repeated what Lydia had told him and said other things. Then he asked me a few questions about my past, "Have you ever gotten angry?". etc. He told me I was going to have to take "Anger Management Classes".

At this point, I began having difficulty understanding what was happening. From the time I was approached in the Library it was obvious I was not free to go. Our Motorhome was blocked in by a hedge on two sides and police cars on the remaining 2. Yet I had not been read my rights, and no one had responded to my questions about my rights.

After I did my best to give account of what had actually happened I told the Detective that I had only spoken to him as man to man, not legally. My rights had not been read to me and to my understanding he just wanted to know personally, that is exactly how he made it appear. His true intention was about to surface.

He walked me back over to My Home and told me that I was wrong and that he was charging me with Assault 3, a felony charge. The Detective then told me that he would take me to the county jail for fingerprinting and photos and that I would probably be released shortly thereafter. Ruth, Our Daughters and I were then escorted into Our Home while they did paperwork outside.

I was then taken aside to an alley where I was questioned about the girls' ages by Spencer Soderlind, an SCF caseworker. I told him I was feeling ill and kept requesting to sit or lay down. No one paid attention, so I simply sat down on the curb. I answered what questions I could, but I felt like I was in shock, barely conscious. It should have been obvious that I was not feeling well, so I don't know why they kept hounding me for information.

I got up and walked back to My Home and went in with Ruth and Our Daughters. The Detective came into Our Home and asked a few more questions. We were all very scared and Ruth was crying. I picked Lydia up and gave her a long hug and then put her down and told her to be strong. I then looked at the Detective and asked him "What do you see? Do you see people here who deserve this? What did we ever do?" He said, "You obviously love Your Daughters, otherwise you wouldn't be teaching them how to read, to write, do math" etc. He said that Bethany looked healthy but that Lydia and Miriam appeared malnourished and dehydrated to him.

No one ever asked if any of them had been ill or had conditions or allergies. The other caseworkers also said that it was obvious that we love our children. I asked them how they could accuse the children of dehydration and malnutrition when Ruth and the girls were eating and drinking when the 1st officer peered through the window to speak with Ruth. The empty plates and glasses were on the floor through the entire first part of the interrogation and the kids still had jam on their faces when they were taken. No one answered these questions. They simply claimed that they needed to take them to the hospital to have them checked out.

There was obviously no evidence of abuse in Our Home, so they were going to take them to their own arena of familiar state paid doctors to "produce" some evidence. But before this, I needed to be removed from the picture because it was apparent I wouldn't let them keep my God Given Daughters. We were then removed from Our Home to depart. Before leaving the library parking lot, I informed the Detective that I take critical to life medicine twice a day, once each morning and once each evening, and that without it, severe spasmodic reaction and asthma is imminent. I could see the possibility of not getting back to my medicine for a while. He said, "Don't worry about it, when they book you in the jail, they won't allow any pills or drugs and you should be out in a matter of hours anyway".

I hesitated at his answer but saw no choice but to trust him. I had no knowledge of jails or legal procedures, having no previous police record of any kind, not even a traffic ticket. My wife had been questioned during all this and I now saw that they were taking her and Our Daughters to the hospital to have them checked out. I began to cry as I saw My Daughters being placed into an unknown mini-van. I told them I loved them and then looked away because I couldn't take the pain.

The Detective told me that he wasn't going to cuff me but would have me escorted over to the station unrestrained. I thought that odd for a felon to be allowed to go about unrestrained. Then a uniformed and armed woman stood on my left and the man with the white shirt and arm brace on his left arm stood on my right and escorted me with no body contact to the police station.

I was taken to a tiny room adjacent to the Detective's cubicle and was asked to sit down at a small table with two chairs facing each other. After a few moments, the Detective occupied the other chair. On the table was a cassette tape recorder. He inserted a tape and pushed record. He told me that I probably knew my rights better than he did and asked me if I knew my rights? I asked him to read them to me. After he read me my rights I informed him that I intended to exercise my 5th Amendment right to remain silent. He then asked me if he had threatened me in any way and I began to say no, but realized that indeed he had, so I again reminded him that I was choosing to exercise my 5th Amendment right to remain silent. He then said, "I wish you would have told me that before so I wouldn't have wasted a tape."

He then moved me to his office space and asked me a few questions like where it happened and when it happened. I said I didn't know. Then I was taken to the jail where I was stripped of my clothes, my bible, my every possession, except my glasses. I was given jail clothes and placed in a holding cell with a piece of vinyl mat and a scratchy blanket which I wrapped around myself because I was shivering.

By this time I badly needed to urinate, but no one heard my beating on the door or calling out for the guard so I had to urinate into a drain in the floor. This was a humiliating experience and I hoped no one would barge into the cell while I was doing this.

About an hour later, I was served dinner which I could not eat. I was simply too traumatized. I could not eat during my entire incarceration at the jail. Later I was taken to a temporary holding cell which had a bed, linens, a sink and a toilet. If I spoke loudly I could talk to the prisoners in the cells adjacent to mine, though I could never actually see anyone. I asked the other prisoners what I could do to get the medicine I was now past due on. They told me that I would have to ask the guard when he came around. This I did and the guard told me that I would have to wait until morning to see the nurse if he was on duty and he would have to prescribe me the medicine! I told him that I usually take the medicine at 5pm and then again first thing in the morning. The guard shrugged his shoulders, turned and walked away.

I laid down on the bed and prayed to God to get me through the night without dying. I did make it through, though I was very ill, and short of breath. In the evening I was served a snack which I couldn't eat because I still felt ill. I didn't sleep much because of all the thoughts going around in my head. Mostly all I could think of was my poor family and what they must be going through without me there to help and protect them. I prayed for mercy from God and this was the hardest night of my life!

I had heard it said at some point that my initial hearing would probably be 1 month from the time of my arrest and I knew that it was possible that they could hold me there in jail until that time. I was devastated. I felt like an animal pacing back and forth not knowing what to do. Eventually I was taken out of the cell to have my fingerprints and photos taken. The fingerprinting was a violating experience, but I was happy to be out of that cell for a few moments! Unfortunately I was returned to the cell until the 1st of August (Bethany's Birthday). The next morning I still had no medicine and no sign of the nurse. I was served breakfast which I could not eat because I was still too traumatized and ill.

Before midday I was taken to see the release officer who reviewed my information. He told me that I had basically admitted to the crime and asked me why I was so angry. I told him that I wasn't angry and he began to speak of how my eyes twitched and about how my body language said that I was uncomfortable. I told him that all I cared about was getting my family back together. He said that he was reluctant to release a "transient" with a felony charge back out on the streets. I
told him that I knew that if I didn't show up in court that I would be a fugitive in every state because of the felony charge.

He pointed out to me the fact that I have no criminal record and that my wife and I both have college degrees and that I am an Eagle Scout. He wanted to know about our financial business and how we make a living. I told him about our Internet business. He seemed puzzled why a person such as myself would find himself in jail. I was puzzled as well. Eventually he decided to release me and about two hours later I was released downtown Grants Pass, but only to find that our Motorhome was gone and my wife nowhere to be found. I was alone in a strange town with no where to go!

I was not notified of a trial date set for that day nor was I notified that My Daughters had been confiscated by the State of Oregon and placed into protective custody. The Protective Custody Reports state that "Parents were notified of this hearing today and of protective custody".

I remembered the welcome to Grants Pass, Oregon sign I had seen on my way into town and shook my head in dismay! I recalled it stating the population, but never did it warn of possible seizure of Daughters and property without notice or warrant.
Your Gateway  to the Truth!

Government Violations of Parental Rights All Too Common, Heritage study says

Veritas News Service - Exclusive, September 7, 2001, WASHINGTON DC -- Legislation moving through Congress would protect parents from a growing number of government attempts to prevent them from raising their children as they see fit, according to a Heritage Foundation study.

With "parental rights" under siege on all fronts -- from legislatures, courts, government agencies, even the "helping" professions -- the "Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act" would restore to parents what the Supreme Court has deemed their "fundamental right" to direct the upbringing of their children, say study authors Patrick Fagan, Heritage's William FitzGerald fellow in family and cultural studies, and Wade Horn, director of the National Fatherhood Initiative. Fagan is former deputy assistant secretary for social services policy at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Horn is former U.S. Commissioner for Children, Youth and Families.

To underscore the deteriorating status of parental rights -- and the need for legislation to correct the problem -- Fagan and Horn point to a number of recent abuses:

a.. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., tried in 1994 to require parents who educate their children at home to obtain state teacher certification, a step that would have all but abolished a practice already recognized as a parental right;

b.. The Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1995 ruled that local school boards could deny parents the right to "opt out" of sex education classes and condom distributions for their children;

c.. The Michigan Supreme Court in 1993 denied "secular parents" the right to educate their children at home, even though it upheld the right of "religious parents" to do so;

d.. The county of Durham, N.C., in 1995 drew up guidelines for determining the presence of child abuse in the home that could lead to investigations of parents for practices such as confining children to their rooms. The county also crafted a list of guidelines for "suitable" parenting, which included dictating such minutiae as what time parents must be home if a baby-sitter is watching their children (9 p.m. in the case of 12-14 year olds, for example);

e.. A school nurse and doctor in East Stroudsburg, Penn., recently administered physical examinations -- including examination of the genitalia -- to about 60 girls aged 11 and 12, without permission from many of their parents; and

f.. Even groups like school counselors and the American Library Association (ALA) have shown hostility toward parental rights; counselors by claiming they can counsel minors without parental consent, and the ALA by opposing parental efforts to prevent their children from checking out R- and X-Rated videos.
Fagan and Horn say that even though the Supreme Court has ruled decisively in favor of parental rights, violations of those rights still occur with alarming frequency. To correct the problem, the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act (sponsored by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Steve Largent, R-Okla.) would buttress the Court's settled opinion by clarifying parental rights to:

a.. direct or provide for the education of the child;

b.. make a health or mental-health decision for the child (with exceptions to "prevent an imminent risk of serious harm or remedy serious harm to the child");

c.. discipline the child, including reasonable corporal punishment as defined by the Supreme Court; and

d.. direct or provide for the religious and moral formation of the child.
The analysts are careful to point out that the legislation would in no way hinder states from protecting children from child abuse. Parental rights are fundamental, but they are not absolute, the analysts say. "No parent has a right to abuse a child," they say, "and the state has the duty to protect the child." The analysts say the real threat of child abuse stems not from the legislation, but from the "family preservation philosophy" of social workers who repeatedly try to reunite children with clearly abusive parents.

To those opponents of parental rights who will nevertheless raise the child-abuse issue, the analysts again cite the Supreme Court, which said in 1979 that "the statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition."

It is this "repugnant" disregard for parental rights that must be corrected, the analysts say. The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act would do just that, they say, "erecting a barrier against the mounting erosion of these rights."

NOTE: Heritage Foundation research and publications are available on the Internet through Heritage's homepage ( To retrieve articles from the Heritage publications library, simply access the Heritage site, click on the icon entitled "Publications Library" and choose the policy area of interest.

The straw that could break America's Back!

NOTE! Officer Jack Redfied was suspended from the Klamath Falls Police Force after giving this speech to the water-starved Klamath Ranchers at the irrigation headgates. - Editor

By Jack Redfield
Copyright 2001 by Jack Redfield

Many residents of Klamath County reading this letter will identify my name with law enforcement as I have been a member of the Klamath Falls Police Department for over 39 years. The content of this letter is not necessarily the opinion of the City of Klamath Falls or the Klamath Falls Police Department.

It is my opinion as a private citizen of Oregon and the United States and as a small ranch operator. I am not affected financially to the degree of other Klamath Basin ranchers due to non-ranch related income. I am also one of the fortunate few who irrigates from a well (for the time being), but there is no doubt that the so-called environmentalists will be initiating an effort to control or stop irrigation from ground water in the near future.

My considered opinion of the recent water crisis in the Klamath Basin, which has been initiated by the so-called environmentalists and our federal agencies, is that it is nothing more than an act of thinly-disguised domestic terrorism directed at the economy of the US.

I believe that the people who are orchestrating this atrocity are not environmentalists at all (although they may be being manipulated into believing they are doing the right thing), that they are actually acting in the capacity of environmental and/or economic terrorists (or at least extremists) who are launching a severe and effective attack upon the economy of the United States.

The same environmentalist extremists enjoyed a good deal of success in recent years with the spotted owl, which was also nothing more than an excuse to destroy the logging industry. There is no doubt that had the spotted owl not been considered an endangered species, they would have easily found another creature, be it a reptile, fish, other bird, rodent, etc. that needed to be protected to further their cause. So be it with the suckers. In other parts of the nation where such nonsense is starting, I am hearing reports of endangered gnatcatchers, shrimp, turtles, other fish, etc.

Recently the terrorists-extremists have enjoyed a tremendous success in shutting down our local agriculture with no regards at all to the misery and destruction of thousands of local ranchers, farmers, local business people. They have also found a great amount of support through the liberal federal court system within the ninth district. I don't see that changing until the case makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that takes time and I am afraid that it will be too late for many of our local people by then.

Our only hope is that Congress will recognize where this is going within the entire nation and take action to modify the endangered species act to achieve a reasonable balance between the needs of endangered species and the livelihood of American citizens.

This is not a local issue. I would suggest that the Klamath Basin attack is nothing more than a test case. With the success that the environmental extremists and some out of control federal agents (so called public servants, hah) have recently enjoyed, they will not stop in the Klamath Basin.

They are already up to their devious evil in other parts of Oregon and in other states. Considering that there is a good deal of agriculture in nearly every state in the nation, this thing will spread like wildfire and before long I believe that our way of life as we now know it will be very different.

We have seen a great deal of restraint among our local agriculture community and our local business people who are threatened, despite the extreme emotional trauma that they are experiencing and their understandable anger. Their professionalism and restraint during the recent bucket brigade demonstration was remarkable. This will not last.

As the extremists and out-of-control federal agents continue to push and as the agricultural people see their fields turn brown and their entire lives destroyed, their frustration will undoubtedly escalate to the point of boiling over. It won't take much from Andy Kerr or Wendell Wood or their like to spark an extremely violent response. I am talking about rioting, homicides and destruction of property like dams that hold the precious water from the agricultural community.

When you expand the crisis to our 50 states over the next year or two as this madness progresses, you are looking at the destruction of the livelihoods of millions of people and businesses. Will that strike a violent response? I think so!

As the economy of the entire nation is threatened and crumbles, I think that the leaders of other nations who are not necessarily friends of the United States will be smiling broadly. Will our national security be threatened? I certainly think so!

Is it possible that there are foreign governments who would enjoy a severe economic crisis in the United States, and is it possible that these foreign governments who are not friendly to the United States might be rendering substantial financial support to this economic attack? What better way to bring a nation to its knees than to attack their agriculture water supply?)

Is there a possibility that this could lead to civil war within the United States? I think the potential for extreme violence, even to the extent of civil war is possible if action is not taken in the very near future to remedy this tragedy.

Compare this to the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. Is it possible that a foreign power was instrumental in their economic collapse? Is the U.S. next? Are other nations who depend heavily on agriculture - such as Australia - experiencing an attack of the same nature?

I am seriously afraid that if our United States Congress and the federal court system does not wake up and stop this madness, this nation is about to experience an era that has the potential to severely damage or completely destroy our nation's economy. Should this happen, all the efforts of our political leaders, military forces and loyal U.S. citizens in the history of our nation will have gone for naught. The promises of the United States government to all those veterans of foreign wars and other United States citizens will become as worthless as their dry fields. God help us if our federal government doesn't come to their senses and recognize the extreme danger of this fiasco before it is too late!

NRA, CARA and the Café Constitution

Diane Alden
August 31, 2001

The founders instituted a constitutional form of government, which severely limited the power of government. In regard to federal ownership of land, let's see what the Constitution actually has to say, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten square miles) as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States and to exercise like authority over all places purchased, by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings." (my emphasis)
Almost since the ink was dry on the Constitution, the federal government, located amidst the centers of financial, educational and cultural power, began to ignore that particular clause. One reason is that Northeast financial interests benefited from the natural resources of the states. Thus, the American Establishment sought by hook or by crook to find ways around the Constitution in order to establish control over the states, especially those west of the Mississippi.

As the American Establishment spread federal control over the landmass of the United States, it benefited and expanded federal power and prestige. It gave the federal leviathan increased assets as well. Those assets which it controls can be passed out to favored financial or individual interests, or interests of special groups such as environmentalists, who have accumulated power and have become THE significant special interest of recent times.

Since the days of the early settlers, the gold seekers, the timber barons, the railroad tycoons, the West has been up for grabs. It has been through one court case after another, through treaties and various acts of Congress that the power and control of the federal government over the Western states continues to expand even to this very day. Unfortunately, the people who fell for the government line enticing them westward also had to deal with the broken promises and tendency for the federales to take what they wanted.

There has always been a tendency to treat the states like colonies. That has been the case even though the Constitution specifically prohibits and limits what the government in D.C. can and cannot own or control. In fact, federal control over lands in sovereign states was to be achieved only with the permission of the several states.

It is a historical fact that the American political powers, including the courts, the Congress and the executive branch, have a lousy record of obeying the dicta in the Constitution that each and every public servant swears to uphold.

Having said that, I recall another part of the Constitution under attack these days - namely, the Second Amendment. That particular amendment, of course, gives the citizen the unalienable right to keep and bear arms. The courts, Congress and executive branch at one time or another have added to, taken away from, or changed that amendment in many significant ways. These days it is a constant uphill struggle for individuals and groups who support the Second Amendment to maintain the integrity of that right.

Just as private property owners and the Western states are having a hard time keeping what was deeded to them by government, by Acts of Congress and by tradition, gun rights advocates often face hostile special interests with no other intent than to disarm the citizenry. There is no concern for the Constitution or its guarantees by these groups, except when it is their ox or particular "right" being gored.

But what's a little law breaking here and there by government? It has the guns and the power to force its will on the states and on individuals. Courts merely pretend to offer a redress of grievances; most of the time they end up telling individuals or the states they have no "standing." Also, Congress is too busy expanding our borders and catering to politically correct special interests and urban interests to pay much attention to broken treaties with flyover country. Congress is getting good at ignoring that which does not suit individual re-election bids.

One of the organizations defending the Second Amendment is the National Rifle Association. For many years the NRA has stood for upholding that amendment and thus the Constitution. It has helped individuals learn to use firearms safely as it offered opportunities for hunters and target shooters to use that right. The NRA has been a boon to hunters, target shooters and other Americans who have chosen to maintain arms in order to protect their lives, their families and their property. The NRA has withstood criticism and pressure from all sides.

Unfortunately, the NRA discovered recently which way the constitutional winds were blowing. It understands that the Constitution and the laws contained therein are being bent beyond recognition. A pragmatic bunch, the NRA has found it necessary over the years to cave in. It is well aware that politicians and others sought to limit or restrict the guarantees of the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, as American society became more amoral and immoral, violent and cruel, in addition to being dumbed down, what was a powerful national lobbying organization to do?

Well, the NRA is at the Café Constitution again, bellying up to the counter as it puts the Second Amendment on its tray, even though there is less of it. But the NRA is leaving off the stuff it doesn't like - for instance, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. Recently, I found out that the NRA and its board of directors is supporting CARA (Conservation and Reinvestment Act.) The board includes such notable "conservatives" as James Baker, a man who for decades has been an institution in most Republican administrations. Baker is Executive Director of NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action).

Also on the board is national talk show host and former Marine Corps colonel Oliver North. Other glitterati include board members Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, rock star Ted Nugent and movie actor and president of the NRA, Charlton Heston.

Sadly, the NRA and its lawyers only like certain items on the constitutional menu. They will support CARA, which those of us in flyover country refer to as the "Condemnation and Relocation Act." According to NRA lawyers, CARA will be good for wildlife. Don Young, R-Alaska, says it will be good for wildlife and the environment. Therefore, it must be made into an expensive law with an accompanying expensive long-term buying program.

What Young fails to mention and what the NRA chooses to ignore is that CARA is also a giant pork barrel for Young's state of Alaska. Co-sponsor Willie Tauzin, R-La., will find plenty of pork coming to his state through CARA as well. The act, besides being unconstitutional, is a $45 billion pork-o-rama for the various states and certain elite special interests. But it is hell on private property rights.

Nevadan and constitutional and property rights lawyer Fred Grant Kelly points to the devil in the details of CARA. Section 205 of CARA specifically provides for condemnation when the property owner does not "concur" to sell. Each year the federal government will submit to Congress a list of private land and water to be acquired by condemnation if necessary. It will establish programs for acquisition of habitat for species even when a species is NOT endangered.

Those most at risk of government confiscation will be inholders. These are people who are located in the middle of federal lands or in adjacent areas. Many of them are now trapped by the 60 million acre and more "roadless initiative" crammed down rural America's throats during the last days of the Clinton administration.

Clinton's land grab, achieved through executive orders rather than through Congress, makes Alexander the Great and Hitler look like pikers. He succeeded with the collusion of elite green groups, foundations like Pew Charitable Trust and a complicit media. The conditions for forcing "willing sellers" were put in place by that great humanitarian, Bill Clinton. Now the Republicans and conservative groups are going to hand over the checkbook to accomplish the green dream and the next stage in the power grab.

Individuals will be forced to sell at bargain basement prices or face condemnation. Don't say it can't happen - it has happened to over 100,000 families since 1966. Oftentimes the green bureaus do not limit themselves to the boundaries set by Congress but go on to condemn or acquire thousands of acres more.

The state of Minnesota can tell you how that works. In the Land of Ten Thousand Lakes, place after place saw thousands of acres taken by the federal government for parks or some elite set-aside designation. That takes that land off the tax rolls and out of local and state control. Whatever happened to Clause 17? Condemnation was used on "willing sellers" in Minnesota's pretty places like bombs over Dresden and Tokyo. From St. Croix River to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area the swift and mighty green machine rolled on.

Since Congress does not offer genuine oversight, this kind of thing happens all the time in the great wide somewhere. Just ask Nevadan Wayne Hage or my cousins in northern Minnesota. In fact, the individual has no REAL redress that does not take thousands of dollars and years of court actions to conclude. But rarely do the courts offer redress in favor of the individual.

The courts are part of the problem. After all, it is in their best interests to grow government at the expense of the individual, since most of them rewrite the Constitution to suit their prejudices and whims. It doesn't take a brain surgeon or a Harvard lawyer to read and understand the Constitution. It does, however, take a Harvard lawyer to make something up out of whole cloth.

The Endangered Species Act will be strengthened by CARA regardless of whether the species is a game animal, threatened or endangered. There is NO common sense in regard to this act. It is an abomination written with only a limited number of species in mind and now includes trash fish that are not endangered and fairy shrimp they used to sell in the back of my Scrooge McDuck comic book.

Water rights will also be threatened. Just ask the Klamath farmers how that works. Fourteen hundred farm families and their entire community are going down the drain because of fish species that are not endangered. Government reneged on promises it made to these farmers years ago. Meanwhile, along with their human neighbors 483 other species are without water.

Get a grip, folks - in case you haven't realized it YET, this isn't about endangered species. More likely it's the further implementation of the "big park" theory of environmental science. That big park will include half the landmass of the United States. Humans need not apply. The greens, the feds and others seek to take land that they covet each for their own reasons.

Too bad the rural types are in the way of "progress" and will simply have to deal with rural cleansing. They have been so badly demonized by the mainstream press that even conservative talk show hosts are ignoring them or justifying the federal taking of their land and water rights. That is exactly what the NRA is doing regarding CARA. Establishment "conservatives" are no better than their socialist friends in the mainstream media, in Congress or in groups like the NRA.

Nonetheless, I suspect that someday greens will be sorely disappointed as the land is denied to them in favor of some corporate interest favored by the government. Government never keeps its promises. Just ask the American Indian, the Klamath farmers, and the people who have been run out of rural counties throughout the American West over the last 20 years and more. At least the Wall Street Journal got it right recently that it is a diabolical "rural cleansing" using law, courts and the force of arms to accomplish the agenda of the powers that be.

In addition, the separation of powers doctrine is violated by CARA. Monies are delegated to federal agencies to establish or implement programs. In other words, Congress is passing off carte blanche powers to a bunch of bureaucrats, powers that should be specific to Congress alone. Turning over its power to bureaucrats further erodes the Constitution. Remember that is the same document which the NRA and others wax so passionately about when THEIR ox is being gored. The Café Constitution is open for business - and I do mean business.

NewsMax's Wes Vernon reports that the $45 billion slush fund will be used "by federal, state, or local authorities, in cooperation with left-wing interests, to grab more land from private property owners for some perceived environmental good." The House Resources Committee allowed only one single witness to testify against the legislation. A hundred other witnesses were not allowed to testify.

American Land Rights Association maintains that "CARA will enable the purchase and turning over to federal and state agencies, private lands historically and currently used for sport hunting, fishing and trapping. Bureaucracies are increasingly hostile to sports hunting or ANY recreational use not on the politically correct list of the Sierra Club and organizations like it.

Furthermore, animal rights groups are taking aim at the NRA's beloved Pittman-Robertson-Dingell-Johnson funds, which will deny NRA members the hunting rights they so jealously guard.

Oh! By the way, you boys at the NRA, you might have read recently about the big fight going on between hunters and the enviros in Big Cypress National Preserve. The hunters and the greens joined forces in South Florida years ago to protect the spiffy wilderness so that both might enjoy them.

It was not to be. Hunters are now facing opposition from National Park Conservation Association, Florida Biodiversity Project, Fund for Animals, Biodiversity Legal Defense Fund (another group funded by Pew), Wildlife Advocacy Project and several other green organizations. Isn't compromise wonderful! As the hunters have found, they are being adjudicated clear out of their hunting rights in Florida. These are rights the green groups swore up and down would be protected. Are you listening, NRA hunters??? Probably not - you actually think it can't happen to you.

When CARA came up in the 106th Congress, property rights of individuals were not included and are still not included in the current version of HR 701. Thus, phony-baloney claims that CARA protects various rights are, in the words of Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma, "just a head fake."

The Masters of the Universe and the Rest of Us

As Sierra Times journalist John Lankford reminded me recently, in James Michener's epic novel "Texas" pages are dedicated to the feudal-type hunting system of the Texas rich and famous. Every square foot of privately owned hunting lands was controlled by those who had no tradition of open hunting. Much of the lands were operated just like a feudal barony.

Meanwhile, across the wide Missouri in this day and age it is getting more difficult for hunters to hunt on public lands - unless they have an outfitter. These guys welcome legislation like CARA because it will mean big bucks for them. The fact is as land for hunting becomes scarce, it will cost thousands of dollars to hire an outfitter. If and when you can get permits to hunt in the first place. Joe Six-Pack is going to find himself priced out of the sport he loves.

There is always a certain amount of elitism in laws impacting the rural American West. Formerly, East Coast elite like Teddy Roosevelt, J.D. Rockefeller, many European noblemen and others hunted and created hunting associations like Boone and Crockett. In our own times, corporate heads, CEOs and Hollywood stars are buying up ranches and property in the West as taxes and prices make land available only to the rich.

It is a kind of snobbery and let-them-eat-cake attitude that rules. The locals are often viewed with disdain even though the lands the new rich and greens covet have been made beautiful by the good care of the locals. I will bet the "degraded" land that greens always kvetch about is federal land. Compare government forests or land to that held or cared for by private individuals. I will guarantee that the land held in private hands is healthier and has a wider range of game and thus plenty of "biodiversity" without government interference.

Chuck Cushman of American Land Rights Association testified before Congress about CARA and the elite connection recently. He stated, "It is very clear that the Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land, Conservation Fund and other giant trusts are essentially taking over the role of deciding where our new national parks and other conservation set-asides are going to be. They are setting our future conservation policy instead of Congress. This seems to be a very dangerous course of action."

This is an understatement, to be sure. The board members of these "trusts" are in some cases like the conservative elite on the board of the NRA. One of these land trust honchos is a personal friend of Dick Cheney. He is John Turner with the Conservation Fund. His possible nomination to the Interior Department when Bush took office created such a ruckus it was squashed. Amazing how even the Republican establishment has a problem recognizing land-grabbing types of individuals when they see them.

What is happening is twofold. There is a taking of some land for the new adherents of the green religion on one hand. On the other hand there is the taking of land by those who think they know how best to use that land. That includes both the green corporate establishment like the Sierra Club, etc., as well as bigwigs of major corporations. It is ironic that large American corporations back green groups even as rural producers become fewer and fewer. Is it possible that this makes it easier for them to control the means of production? By the way, political scientists call that fascism and NOT the free market.

Now we have, by its own admission, a federal government responsible for the fires and devastation it has caused on millions of acres in the West. The recent deaths of four young firefighters due to an overzealous implementation of the Endangered Species Act by federal bureaucrats is a tragedy that didn't have to happen. But then we are talking about brain-dead government bureaucrats who consider a fish more sacred than human life. We have a Congress which will NOT amend the act for fear that a greenie will look at them sideways.

Meanwhile, the executive branch just prays the issue will go away so it doesn't mess up its attempt to attract soccer moms and illegal immigrants.

We have a national government that has reigned over a park system on the verge of collapse for years - a corrupt system and parks that look like heck because the federal government expands its lands rather than taking care of what it has. Of course, that is how things work. The powers that be give the keys to everything to the most incompetent bureaucracies so they can spread their incompetence and mismanagement as they become ever more firmly in control.

Who cares that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are being eroded? It matters not whether the reasons are for the sake of the sensibilities of the new adherents of the green religion or for corporate or statist reasons. There is absolutely no concern or appreciation for the Constitution, for private property, or for the thousands of families and individuals and communities being destroyed by the collusion between the various special interests and the federal leviathan.

Cushman stated in his presentation before Congress: "Land acquisition will overwhelm rural America. . Hundreds of small communities in existing federal areas will be wiped off the map."

This is what the NRA is supporting - the destruction of private property and what is left of the rural West. The elitist attitude by NRA board member James Baker was revealed in his absolutely arrogant Marie Antoinette statement to Jay Walley of the Paragon Foundation. Walley challenged the NRA's support for CARA and questioned the constitutionality and the propriety of such support. Baker acted the imperious know-it-all.

Baker didn't answer the concerns specifically but alluded to Title III of the gosh-awful bill like it was the Ten Commandments. He concluded his attack by giving out Walley's home phone number and other personal information on the NRA website. Furthermore, he attacked Walley as "the individual responsible for launching this irresponsible diversion."

All I have to say to Baker and the rest of the crew at the NRA - get the silver spoon and your foot out of your mouths. The legitimate concern in flyover country regarding CARA, the Wildlands Project, HR 488 and other terrible unconstitutional laws has been around a long long time - LONG before your support of CARA, guys. Baker and the NRA are out of touch with the "peasants" in flyover country. Most certainly they are out of touch with the Constitution of the United States.

As of this week, the feeling by other members of the board of the NRA seems to be that they will continue to support that legislation regardless of how its membership or rural America feels. The NRA believes in letting us eat unconstitutional cake.

The best book on land law I have seen in years is "How the West Was Lost" by William Hayward. He offers an entire four-year course in land law. It relates in easy-to-understand format how America has evolved from a private property nation to a country where 30 percent of the landmass is owned or controlled by the federal government. He states ". this shift . has been going on for a long, long time. It has been gradual, but it has taken place irrespective of the constraints contained in the U.S. Constitution and certain Supreme Court decisions."

In his 1940s-era "Letters from Westminster," journalist Whittaker Chambers eloquently spoke about another case of Washington versus rural America. He states: "They are the breed that built this nation from the unpeopled earth. . [T]hey have silently seceded . from what they believe to be betrayal of basic principle, without which their world surrenders a part of its meaning. That principle is the inviolability of a man's land from invasion by the State, the right of a man to grow for his own use a harvest. . [F]reedom was at stake . that is why they acted. It was not controls, but coercion, they resisted."

The NRA and its board of directors, along with the movers and shakers who support CARA, had better know this: Next time their ox is being gored, when they are looking for support from journalists and the people in rural flyover country for protection from some unconstitutional law, they had better not look to this former NRA member for support. Regarding CARA, Baker and the rest of them should be ashamed. They are cherry picking the parts of the Café Constitution that they like and ignoring the rest. They are doing it for their own SELFISH and snotty elitist interests. Shame on them. Shame on NRA members for allowing it.

(A personal point of reference. My cousin and her husband owned a resort near the Voyageurs National Park and Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota. They were bought up and kicked out by the federal government. It had been a fine resort which had been in their family for years. As inholders, they were NOT willing sellers; they were forced to sell at rock-bottom prices. They bought another property on another lake and now that is in danger of being lost to them through more federal and green legerdemain.

The government never keeps its promises, nor are environmentalists ever happy no matter how much people capitulate to their demands. The boundary waters is currently available to the young and the healthy at the expense of people like my 80-year-old parents. Fishing and hunting in these areas is gone as well. Locals are often strangers and unwelcome in their own land.

I suggest that you NRA folks look at history instead of listening to a drooling pork-barrel spender like Rep. Don Young (NRA board member) and Rep. Bully Willie Tauzin - who shook his fist in Rep. Barbara Cubin's face when she wouldn't go along with CARA. Shame on both Young and Tauzin.)

PROOF! Army 'Civilian' Prison Camps and
'Civilian' Inmate Labor Program!

Fort Dix Internment
and Relocation Training Camp

Veritas News Service - August 7, 2001 -- These photos were taken at Fort Dix, New Jersey. This is obviously a prison camp no matter what they might call it. Who has the U.S. Army targeted for Internment and Relocation? Where is the place to which they will be moved and why? What units are being trained to administer and carry out this plan? Under what circumstances would such a plan be activated? Who would give such an order? Isn't this exactly what Hitler and his NAZI party did in Europe?

Foundations Funding Failure
The 3 F's Replace the 3 R's

by Diane Alden

Veritas News Service - July 28, 2001 -- The bad news first: There is no good news. Public education and government schools are a mess. If it were a business it would be in receivership. If it were mentally ill it would be in a padded cell on heavy doses of lithium and Prozac. Nevertheless, after Social Security, public education is the secondary third rail of American life and politics - it isn't supposed to be touched. It is THE sacred cow of modern times.
Listening to the National Education Association, Congress or almost any politician, each of them has the latest nostrum for fixing education. Count on the fix amounting to billions more dollars year in and year out.

The result of the avoidance of the truth will be that our children and grandchildren will face a future looking up from the bottom of the international scholastic heap in every crucial subject area. Why else are we having to import computer engineers, analysts and scientists from the Far East?

By the Numbers Ye Shall Know Them

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, there are approximately 52 million elementary and secondary school students in the U.S. Forty-six million are in government schools, 5.9 million in private, and 1.7 million in home schooling, which is growing by the day. Class sizes have decreased since 1970 from 24 and 20 elementary and secondary students per teacher, respectively, to 18 and 14 elementary and secondary students per teacher today. Fifty-two percent of schools are operating below capacity, 26 percent at capacity and 22 percent are overcrowded.

Ninety-eight percent of schools have Internet access.

Education expenditures climbed to $647 billion for the 1999-2000 school year. Sixty percent of that spending was for elementary and secondary schools. An unbelievable 7 percent of our gross domestic product was spent on education.

What do we get for all those big bucks? The 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress found that 68 percent of fourth-grade students in the U.S. are reading below proficient level. Sixty-three percent of African-American students, 58 percent of Hispanic students, and 47 percent of children in urban schools are reading below basic level, which is a step below the proficient level. Additionally, African-American and Hispanic children slip farther behind from year to year.

It gets worse. At the post-secondary level, ALL two-year institutions have to offer remedial courses in reading, writing and math, while 81 percent of four-year institutions and 63 percent of private four-year institutions must do so. That means freshmen are taking courses in English and math and reading that they already should have had firmly planted in their mental database.

They aren't getting the basics in government schools, but they sure do know about recycling. They don't know the correct answers to basic questions, but they sure do feel good about themselves. This predicament is not exactly a bargain for the nearly $700 billion we spend on education per year. Imagine if that money were parceled out to families what they could accomplish with their own educational dollars.

American high school seniors came in 19th out of 21 countries in math and dead last in advanced placement math.

Nearly 60 percent of children watch three to four hours of TV per day, and of those 12 percent watch six or more hours per day.

Fourth-grade students who reported teachers using the phonics approach as opposed to whole word scored significantly higher in reading than students who didn't have this help.

For all the money we spend, the General Accounting Office states that "federally funded programs have historically placed a low priority on results and accountability." From 1984 to 1997 there was an additional $78 billion heaped on education with no results of any note - except that things got worse.

Foundations are not a big help in improving education and they have NEVER been much help. They give billions to badly conceived fads and teaching techniques or physical arrangements that have no earthly benefit in educating children. From open campuses to environmental mis-education, from values clarification to multiculturalism, some foundation has funded every single fad, foolish policy and pointless teachers program that has come over the educational horizon.

A Philanthropy magazine investigation found that ". total philanthropic giving for all causes in 1999 was $190.2 billion, according to the AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy report titled 'Giving USA 2000.' Of that amount, $27.5 billion (14.4 percent) went to education. Giving to education is the largest category of philanthropy spending after religion (individuals give the most to religion) and its annual increase in recent years has averaged around 10 percent."

Yet the fact is most grants go to the officials in the failed school systems with the worst performance. Big bucks given to places where there is no oversight of what happens to that money. As Philanthropy states, "a review of the Foundation Center's database of about 10,000 grantmakers and 100,000 sample grants is instructive. Of the 50 largest grants described as funding elementary and secondary school reform, 24 went directly to public school systems or public school funding entities. Another 19 went to nonprofit organizations, some of them closely identified with the education establishment like the Education Commission of the States. None of the grants was for reform of public, private or parochial schools."

Past as Prologue

The major foundations were founded primarily by what is now known as the Eastern American establishment. They were and are the ruling class, the big money changers, movers and shakers. Hardly anyone in high office has gotten there without help from some of them. In America there are exceptions to that rule, but I would bet every president in the last hundred years has had assistance from that establishment or he wouldn't have become president.

An establishment figure himself, historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote in 1965, ". the New York financial and legal community was the heart of the American establishment . its front organizations were the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations."

In his seminal work on foundations, "Foundations: Their Power and Influence," Dr. Rene Wormser maintains that they are an interlocking monopoly of power. These temporal monuments to the captains and the kings have churned out the social engineers and teaching establishment and its intellectual underpinnings for nearly every generation of the last hundred years. These days, they consider educational policies for creating the new world citizen. To do this, Wormser believes, they have deliberately attacked Judeo-Christian morality and replaced the Enlightenment man with the socially engineered citizen of the coming corporate world order.

Well, shades of conspiracy theory, tin foil helmets and black helicopters. Conspiracy or no, the foundations invariably defend what they do. They offer a huge network of support, grants and perks which they use as the vehicle for promoting and creating progressive policies. In America's case progressive policies mean statist, collectivist, socialist, or some combination thereof.

There has always been a control-freak factor among the elite, a bias and a desire to create the perfect corporate citizen of the perfect state. That is what modern elites must do in order to maintain control. But if the citizens are well trained in their duties and have amusements along with some hope of attaining material goods, they don't seem to be aware of the overarching controlling forces under the surface. They pay little attention to the liberties and choices they are losing. Our citizenry is being trained rather than educated.

History indicates foundations usually provide the funding for terrible ideas. All one has to do is look at how much foundation money has gone into the work of bioethicist Dr. Peter Singer to see how outrageous some of these endeavors are. Singer, if you recall, theorizes that parents should be allowed to euthanize their children from newborn up to 2 years old. He also believes there is no difference between people and animals. Singer teaches in a major American university funded by several foundation grants.

Part of his funding came from the Rockefeller family. They have been the kingpins in promoting goofball ideas. That is bad enough, but they have been major funders of some real 20th century horrors as well. It is well known that the Rockefeller Foundation was the original moneybags for the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Weimar Germany. That institute served up eugenics and Hitler's racial policies. The Rockefellers ended the funding in 1936, too late to stop the worst of the practices from being put into eventual operation. The Institute gave the world everything from Liebensborn to the science used for the "final solution."

The Scholars Who Trace the Educational Establishment

There are several books on what has happened to American education. In previous articles, I have mentioned these studies. They include "The Cloning of the American Mind" by Beverly Eakman, "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" by Charlotte Iserbyt, and "The Underground History of American Education" by John Taylor Gatto.

A recent book by scholar Diane Ravitch is titled "Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reform." Ravitch's book traces the failures of public education back 100 years. The educational ideas she delineates in her book came to public education courtesy of the major universities and Eastern establishment foundations.

Ravitch states: "[C]onventional wisdom decreed that subject matter and academic curriculum were outmoded, that the curriculum should never be prescribed by city or state officials but jointly planned by teachers and pupils, that it should be based on students' interests and needs, not on the logical organization of subjects, that experiences and activities were more valuable to students than reading and study, that schools should offer different programs to different groups of students . that students should be promoted every year, regardless of performance, and that professional educators should think of themselves as social engineers, empowered to decide what was best for the students and the rest of society."

She relates that one of the progressive-minded pedagogues was a man named G. Stanley Hall, America's first Ph.D. in psychology. Edward Everett was America's first Ph.D., and both men had an enormous impact on public education. Both were elitists in that neither had any faith or belief in the average American's ability to learn.

Hall's beliefs may be summed up in this statement: "We must overcome the fetishism of the alphabet, of the multiplication tables, of grammars, of scales, and of bibliolatry . it would be no serious loss if a child never learned to read."

Hall looked on American children for the most part as a "great army of incapables, shading down to those who should be in schools for dullards or subnormal children, for those whose mental development heredity decrees a slow pace and an early arrest." Apparently Dr. Hall would fit in well with the current thinking behind public education today.

That thinking also reflected the belief system of the Rockefellers and Fords toward the lower classes. Henry Ford just wanted a person who could follow directions and put the screws and parts in the right places. Rockefeller sought a pliant workforce as well. It is mighty odd that capitalists and socialists combined forces to stomp American education into the ground.

Public schools grew out of the mid-19th century philanthropic giving. Historian Robert Seybolt states that even BEFORE public education, literacy was on the rise among both men and women. Up to 98 percent were literate before the establishment of public schools. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that it was rare to find a New Englander who had not received elementary education and who was not "well-versed in the history and Constitution of the United States."

It was during the great waves of immigration that began in the mid-nineteenth century that the 'free school' notion took hold. Ironically, it was the education subcommittee of the Massachusetts Legislature that warned about institutionalizing education:

"The establishment of the Board of Education seems to be the commencement of a system of centralization and monopoly of power in a few hands, contrary, in every respect, to the true spirit of democratic institutions; and which, unless speedily checked, may lead to unlooked for and dangerous results."

Horace Mann dismissed such critics as "vandals and bigots," and ultimately he prevailed. He became the first secretary of the first state board of education in Massachusetts. During his reign he introduced the first state-run system in 1852. Within 30 years, every Northern state had followed suit, and while only two states had mandatory attendance laws before the Civil War, most others passed such laws after Reconstruction.

In a convergence of historical events the great tides of history melded into policy.

During the great immigration to the U.S. from Ireland and southern and central Europe, historical trends collided with one another. The great capital empires being built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries joined forces with the ideas cooking in America's intellectual class. That class was beginning to feel its power as it took control of the institutions of higher learning. This was an intellectual class that adopted many of its forms and ideas from Germany's Hegel and Marx. Their intellectual arguments regarding the nature of man and his relationship to the state were set in place by our Eastern intellectual class.

Out of that lethal combination came the theory that the average (non-elite) child should become more of an automaton to be trained than an individual to be educated. In that early era as it is today, a truly educated person is a critical person, a citizen who does not go along merely because the new elite demands it. When government entered the mix, education was doomed.

In any case, at the turn of the 20th century the principal capitalists were taking the heat for being successful and had to endure the jealousy and envy that went along with success. This is a partial reason why they became philanthropists. Soak-the-rich schemes led to the 16th Amendment and the income tax. Of course, the soaking has been done to the middle class as well as the rich ever since.

In response to criticism, Rockefeller, Carnegie and others looked for places to put their excess fortunes. J.D. Rockefeller jumped into the educational arena in 1902. That is when his family began funding New York's Columbia Teachers College. It was the "progressive" ideas and causes at the Teachers College which caught their fancy. The worst of those ideas haunt us to this day.

Psychology, eugenics, environmentalism and a host of progressive notions and really bad educational ideas got their sustenance from America's fortunate sons. The ideas behind the new theories came from Europe, especially from the Hegelian German school of thought.

While it is obvious that America divorced Europe with the Revolution, its intellectual class ended up adopting the worst of European ideas. Then came the capitalists. Heaven forbid these great entrepreneurs should be considered anti-progressive or, even worse, very "American." The worst thing the intellectual class did to America and to its capitalists was to deny what was righteous and best about the American character and accompanying philosophy.

The intellectual class despised the ideas that created the American experiment and republican government in the first place. Since the American character had been honed on ideas born in the Enlightenment and in Judeo-Christian thought and tradition, something had to replace it. European theories of the organic state and the primacy of the state over the individual was that replacement.

So our pointy-heads embraced, with a characteristic blindness, the worst that Europe had to offer. Unfortunately, they got the innovators to go along for the ride.

In addition, the intellectual class depended on the guilt and bigotry of the capitalists in order to create the new man.

Primary Education and Teacher Training

"The ultimate problem of all education is to coordinate the psychological and the social factors. ... The coordination demands that the child be capable of expressing himself, but in such a way as to realize social ends." - John Dewey.

John Dewey, father of progressive education, was a disciple of Hegel. Dewey stated that literacy was the greatest obstacle to socialism. He was funded in no small part by American foundations - in particular, the Rockefeller Foundation.

The Rockefeller reasons for doing so were altruistic. Old J.D. Rockefeller stated: "I believe the power to make money is a gift from God - just as are the instincts for art, music, literature, the doctor's talent, yours to be developed and used to the best of our ability for the good of mankind. Having been endowed with the gift I possess, I believe it is my duty to make money and still more money and to use the money I make for the good of my fellow-man according to the dictates of my conscience." Unfortunately, he did not choose wisely in distributing those funds.

John Jr. gave the first funds to Columbia Teachers College in 1902 as a promise to God because he and his family were saved from a fire that destroyed their family home in Pocantico Hills, New York.

"The Leipzig Connection" by Paolo Lionni says that the Rockefeller General Education Board set Columbia Teachers College financially on its feet. Not long after that, the first volume on educational psychology, written by Thorndike, was published.

Lionni writes: "That same year, after a decade in Chicago experimenting with children, John Dewey joined the faculty of Columbia University as a member of the departments of philosophy and education, in a unique position to influence advanced students in Teachers College. With Russell, Cattell, Thorndike, and the other Wundtians, Dewey set the ball rolling for an amalgam of "educational" psychology and socialism. It became known as "Progressive Education" and, emanating from Columbia's Teachers College for the next half-century, it slowly but surely became commonplace in every school in the country."

Columbia Teachers College invented educational psychology and maintained a monopoly for years. It hired German-educated Wundtian psychologists instituting destructive theories and practices based on "opinion parading as science and German racist ideas (genetics, eugenics), invalid notions of 'man' and how to 'control' him."

Since men like Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie were also bigots, as were most WASPs of the era, they viewed the incoming flood of Catholic immigrants as a serious reason to get involved in society, population control, and education. More likely they were frightened of losing control and so concentrated on manipulating society rather than educating it. It was only one step from adopting the ideas of the intellectual class and using them as tools for training individuals as a working force. Foundations since their inception have been the leading promoters and boosters of Hegelian manipulative fads and pseudo-science.

The Best-laid Plans

The free schools of the mid-1800s were geared to teaching the compliant and barely competent immigrant child as a future worker. In Massachusetts, men like Edward Everett took the ideas of the Prussian school of thought and transplanted them to the U.S. According to these theories, children were to be removed from their parents as early as possible and placed in "kindergartens" to be weaned from loyalty to parents and churches, and trained rather than educated. Thus, children became wards of the state in a sense, to be molded for whatever ends the state saw fitting.

Does that sound familiar? It should, because we are dealing with the worst of it today.

Recently the educrats in D.C. maintained that it would be best if children as young as 2 were placed in a school setting. Take away the kid from the parent and train him in the way of the state. Since they don't believe in teaching basic core subjects any longer, they must be training them for some purpose. My guess is they seek to develop the person best fitted to become a functionary of the corporate state. The thought of a free and independent person with unalienable rights given to them by God scares the heck out of the educrats.

But in the early days of the 20th century, the progressive education plans of the WASP establishment were spoiled to some extent.

It was the upstart Catholic and private schools movement, which grew out of necessity, that upset the elite apple cart. As the century unfolded, the establishment, capitalists, foundations and government were loathe to give tax breaks to Catholic or other private schools. They clung to their monopoly using the First Amendment in such a twisted way it took the best lawyers in the country to change the establishment of religion clause to something it was not. BUT it was a very fortunate thing for those private schools. Today they are better off because they did not have foundation or government money with the hooks and strings attached to what could be taught and how they could teach it.

Unfortunately, in the modern era, however, even some of the parochial schools have given in to weird educational theories served off the plate of the corporate state and funded in no small part by American foundations. John Dewey is alive and well, and he and Maslow and Rogers are living in a couple of Catholic schools and definitely in all government schools. That is a pity for America's children.

Still, enough of these independent schools have the good sense to teach basic reading and math so that kids learn and succeed. Children from the inner city who are taught in Catholic schools shine in comparison with their public school contemporaries. A former bishop of New York City accepted the challenge of taking the poorest kids from the worst schools and educating them to a far higher standard than the education they received in the public schools. Their success galls the establishment. After repeated failures, that establishment still insists on engineering a child to be full of self-esteem but no learning - a "processed" child with few critical thinking skills and almost no self-discipline.

One of the most hopeful signs of the 21st century is the home-schooling movement. It may be THE fly in the eye of our current crop of masters of the universe. These government stooges and the plutocrats from the temples of wealth and power will do their utmost to make it as hard as possible for home school practitioners to thrive and survive. But they will survive, and they will continue to outperform the government product by light years. That is what makes them so dangerous to the powers that be.

It is hoped that private schools and home schooling will grow exponentially. For without that independence, American education would be worse off than it is. Aside from Sam Walton and perhaps one or two others, American foundations do not offer grants to home-schooled children or to private schools for poor children. That is too bad. It is also short-sighted and unfair, because the best things in education today are the various independent educational efforts by private groups and individuals.

(In my next piece find out how ideas such as whole word versus phonics and no-error math got started. Why is educational psychology used as a sledgehammer to kill learning? These "progressive" ideas did not appear out of thin air. They grew out of hothouse educational theories funded by . guess who? Learn about "the process" (a term of experimental psychology) and "applying the process" to the profession of teaching. Now these groups want to spread educational failure worldwide, but other countries are having none of it.)

Please check out and sign the anti-CARA and Klamath petitions. Also listen to me Monday and Friday mornings with Steve Myers on the Liberty Works Network out of Washington, D.C.

DOJ and the U.S. Congress Officially Commit to Send IRS Tax and Legal Experts to Appear on Capitol Hill.

We The People Foundation For
Constitutional Education, Inc.
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
Telephone: (518) 656-3578 Fax: (518) 656-9724

July 20, 2001
Mike Bodine (518) 656-3578

Veritas News Service - DOJ and the U.S. Congress Officially Commit to Send IRS Tax and Legal Experts to Appear on Capitol Hill. Public Hearing to be Conducted by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett and Rep. Henry Hyde to Answer Citizens' Challenges of IRS Jurisdiction and Illegal Enforcement of U.S. Tax Law.

Washington D.C. -- We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education, Inc. announce that the Department of Justice and the U.S. Congress have committed, in writing, to appear with IRS representatives in a recorded, public meeting to officially answer to charges challenging the legal jurisdiction of the IRS and the enforcement of U.S income tax laws against U.S. citizens.

Department of Justice U.S. Assistant Attorney General Dan Bryant and Congressmen Roscoe Bartlett (MD) signed the written agreement Friday that commits the government to send their top tax and legal experts to a two-day September hearing to be conducted on Capitol Hill. These actions are in response to a proper petition for redress of grievances brought by Robert Schulz, Chairman of the Foundation. Schulz ended his 3-week hunger fast mid-afternoon today after having secured official commitment from representatives of the U.S. Government that his formal petition will be answered.

Schulz has been in Washington since July 4th on a hunger fast until death, if needed, to force the government to respond to his legal Remonstrance, a petition for redress of grievances. These grievances include challenges of IRS jurisdiction, routine and gross violations of due process by the IRS, the refusal of the IRS to cite the specific law that requires employers or employees to withhold taxes and the fraudulent ratification of the 16th (Income Tax) Amendment.

DOJ's Bryant is quoted, "The American people are entitled to answers. It is in our nation's interest that we participate and answer these questions."

While largely ignored by the media and other government officials, Rep. Bartlett has stood alone on the Hill (until recently) in public defense of Schulz's absolute Constitutional Right to petition for redress and be answered by the government. On Tuesday, Bartlett initiated a formal Congressional Inquiry to the IRS demanding official government responses for Schulz.

Today, DOJ's Dan Bryant agreed to Rep. Bartlett's requirements that the "congressional briefing-like hearings" be conducted in public and be recorded and broadcast live. The meetings will have appropriate procedural controls and security. It is expected Rep. Henry Hyde (IL), former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee will gavel the sessions.

Schulz was "elated that government officials have finally responded as they are required by both the 1st Amendment to the Constitution and their oaths of office."

The agreement, penned on Congressional letterhead, was signed at the Department of Justice headquarters. Bryant assured both Rep. Bartlett and Schulz there is "virtually no chance of being overridden on this matter." Bartlett promised Schulz, "I assure you. The IRS will be there at those meetings."

Schulz continued, "I have met with these gentlemen face-to-face and have looked in their eyes. I am satisfied they are men of honor. We have cemented our agreement with a handshake. The fast ends today.

After decades of obfuscation, avoidance, creative restructuring and 'simplification' of the 9,500-page tax code, the truth is about to be revealed. The Sovereign Citizens have exercised their Right to petition.

It is no coincidence that President Bush revealed in this week's New York Times that the government has begun to publicly discuss alternative tax systems, including disposal of the entire tax code. The internet and talk radio have facilitated detailed research, documentation and discussion of these charges across the nation.

If our income tax system is publicly confirmed to be without force of law upon the People, and is truly as 'voluntary' as the IRS so often advertises, it is highly likely that the government may move quickly to implement a replacement tax such as a national sales tax. The People must remain vigilant that one illegal tax is not replaced by another.

The taxing powers granted to the federal government by our Constitution are explicit, limited and must be complied with. Since 1787, the mechanism for an orderly and peaceful transition to a legal tax system has resided in Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. This is a states' Rights issue.

The day that our government has shunned has arrived. The Sovereign Citizens have formally demanded and exercised their Rights. We The People have been heard."

Joint Chiefs proposed terrorist attacks upon America as Pretext for Cuban Invasion.

Was Kennedy assassination a part of this plan?

Was the Oklahoma City bombing a modern version of the same idea? Was the target American Patriots and Militias?

Veritas News Service - Exclusive - July 17, 2001 -- In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba" was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake "Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," including "sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated)," faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a "Remember the Maine" incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods "may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government."

US Military preparing for Civil War!

U.S. Military Civil Disturbance Planning: The War at Home

Would Government do the Oklahoma City Bombing?

Fake Terror - The Road to Dictatorship

Would a President of the United States commit Treason?

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector

By George W. Maschke and Gino J. Scalabrini

Executive Summary

Veritas News Service - July 17, 2001 -- POLYGRAPH "testing" has no scientific basis: it's entirely dependent on your ignorance and fear. Educate yourself. In this book, you will discover the trickery on which polygraph "testing" depends, and learn how to make sure you pass your polygraph "test."

Our government's reliance on unreliable polygraph "testing" is both a danger to our national security and a hazard to the reputations of law-abiding citizens whose trustworthiness is judged by this voodoo science. The Lie Behind the Lie Detector exposes polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse.

Chapter One covers the validity of polygraph "testing." Polygraphy can have no scientific validity because it is not a scientific procedure.

Chapter Two discusses polygraph policy, with special emphasis on the Aldrich H. Ames espionage case. In addition, the false positive problem in polygraph security screening is also discussed in detail.

Chapter Three exposes the trickery on which polygraph "testing" depends.

Chapter Four provides detailed instructions on how to use polygraph countermeasures to protect yourself against becoming a false positive.

Chapter Five discusses grievance procedures for those who have been falsely accused based on polygraph chart readings.

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is free for non-commercial use and distribution. Download the entire publication xiii + 113 Pages click the link below.

Two Modern Views of Government

A Speech by Senator Tom McClintock
Western CPAC Conference, Los Angeles, June 9, 2001

There are two modern views of government that begin from entirely different premises.

There is the 18th Century American view propounded by our nation's founders. They believed, and formed a government based upon that belief, that each of us is endowed by our creator with certain rights that cannot be alienated, and that governments are instituted to protect those rights. This view is proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and reflected in the American Bill of Rights.

The second view is 19th Century German in origin and expressed in the philosophies of Marx and Hegel and Nietzsche. It is a restatement of philosophies of absolutism that have plagued mankind for millennia. In this view, rights come not from God, but from the state. What rights you have are there because government has given them to you, all for the greater good - defined, of course, by government.

In the 20 years I have been actively engaged in public policy, I have seen the growing influence of this 19th Century German view. It disdains the view of the American Founders. It rejects the notion of inalienable rights endowed equally to every human being by the "laws of nature and of nature's God." In this view, it is the state, and not the individual, where rights are vested.

I mention this, because of a debate that occurred last week on the floor of the State Senate. It was a debate that occurred under the portrait of George Washington and the gold-emblazoned motto, "Senatoris Est Civitatis Libertatum Tueri" - "The Senators protect the Liberty of the Citizens."

At issue was a measure, SB 52, which will require a state-issued license to own a firearm for self-defense. To receive a license, you would have to meet a series of tests, costs and standards set by the state.

We have seen many bills considered and adopted that would infringe upon the right of a free people to bear arms. But this was the most brazen attempt in this legislature to claim that the very right of self-defense is not an inalienable natural right at all, but is rather a right that is licensed from government; a right that no longer belongs to you, but to your betters, who will license you to exercise that right at their discretion.

During the debate on this measure, which passed the Senate 25 to 15, I raised these issues. And I would like to quote to you the response of Senator Sheila Kuehl, to the approving nods of the Senators whose duty is to protect the liberty of the citizens.

She said, "There is only one constitutional right in the United States which is absolute and that is your right to believe anything you want."

I want to focus on that statement. "The only constitutional right which is absolute is your right to believe anything you want."

Now, compare that to the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

What rights have a slave? There is only one: a slave can think anything he wants: as long as he doesn't utter it or act on it - he may think what he wants. He has no right to the fruit of his labor; no right to self-defense, no right to raise his children, no right to contract with others for his betterment, no right to worship - except as his master allows. He has only the right to his own thoughts. All other rights are at the sufferance of his master - whether that master is a state or an owner.

Now, let us continue to look at this new constitutional principle propounded by Senator Kuehl, under the portrait of George Washington to the delight of her colleagues whose duty, according to the proud words above them, is to "Protect the Liberty of the Citizens."

She continued, "Other than that, (the right to your own thoughts) government has the ability to say on behalf of all the people - I will put it in the colloquial way as my grandmother used to - your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. It's a balance of your rights and my rights because we all have constitutional rights. And the question for government is how do we balance those rights?"

Indeed, the right to swing your fist does end where my nose begins. An excellent analogy. Shall we therefore amputate your fist so that you can never strike my nose? And would you deny me the use of my own fist to protect my nose?

Senator Kuehl and her colleagues believe government has the legitimate authority to do so. It is simply the question of balancing.

It is very important that we understand precisely what Senator Kuehl and the Left are saying.

A thief balances your right to your wallet against his right to eat. A murderer balances your right to life against his right to freedom. A master balances your right to "work and toil and make bread," against his right to eat it. These are matters of balance.

The American view is quite different. In the view of the American Founders, the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God endow each of us with rights that are inalienable, and we are each equal in those rights. It is not a balancing act. These rights are absolute. They cannot be alienated.

But in a state of nature, there are predators who would deny us those rights. And thus we come together to preserve our freedom. In the American view, the only legitimate exercise of force by one person over another, or by one government over its people, is "to secure these rights."

Senator Kuehl continues, "My right to defend myself in the home does not extend to my owning a tank, though that would make sense to me, perhaps, that no one would attack my home if I had a tank sitting in the living room."

Let us put aside, for a moment, the obvious fact that a tank is only an instrument of self-defense against a power that employs a tank. But let us turn to the more reasonable side of her argument: that rights can be constrained by government; that there is, after all, "no right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater. How can a right be absolute and yet constrained by government?

To Senator Kuehl and the Left, the answer is simply, "it's easy -- whenever we say so." Or, in her words, "government has the ability to say (so) on behalf of all the people."

The American Founders had a different view, also, not surprisingly, diametrically opposed to Senator Kuehl's way of thinking.

The right is absolute. In a free nation, government has no authority to forbid me from speaking because I might shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Government has no authority to forbid me from using my fist to defend myself because I might also use it to strike your nose. And government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm because I might shoot an innocent victim.

Government is there to assure that the full force of the law can be brought against me if I discharge that right in a manner that threatens the rights of others. It does not have the authority to deny me those very rights for fear I might misuse them.

Senator Kuehl continues, "In my opinion, this bill is one of those balances. It does not say you cannot have a gun. It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says if you are going to be owning and handling and using a dangerous item you need to know how to use it, and you need to prove that you know how to use it by becoming licensed."

How reasonable. How reassuring. How despotic.

We must understand what they are arguing, because it is chilling. They are arguing that any of our most precious rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights - any at least they decide are conceivably dangerous -- may only be extended through the license of the government.

If that is the case, they are not rights. With that one despotic principle, you have just dissolved the foundation of the entire Bill of Rights. You have created a society where your only right is to your own thoughts.

Inalienable rights are now alienated to government, and government may extend or refuse them upon its whim - or more precisely, upon a balancing act to be decided by government. Let us follow - in our minds at least - a little farther down this path.

Hate groups publish newsletters to disseminate their hatred and racism. Sick individuals in our society act upon this hatred. The Oklahoma City bombing killed a score of innocent children. Shouldn't we license printing presses and Internet sites to prevent the pathology of hate from spreading? Such an act doesn't say you cannot have a press. It does not say you cannot express yourself. It says if you are going to be owning and handling a printing press, you should know what not to say and prove that you can restrain yourself by becoming licensed.

And what are we to do about rogue religions like those that produced Heaven's Gate and Jonestown. How many people around the world are killed by acts of religious fanaticism every year? Should we not license the legitimate churches? Such an act doesn't say you cannot have a church. It does not say you cannot worship. It says if you are going to be running and conducting a church, that you must know how to worship and prove that you know how by becoming licensed.

The only right you have is the right to believe anything you want. The only right of a slave. The rest is negotiable - or to use the new word, "balanceable."

In 1838, a 29 year old Abraham Lincoln posed the question for which he would ultimately give his life. Years later, he would debate Stephen Douglas, who argued that freedom and slavery were a matter of political balance. But in this speech, he spoke to the larger question that we must now confront:

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

The American Founders worried about the same thing. Late in life, Jefferson wrote to Adams, "Yes we did create a near perfect union; but will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom. Material abundance is the surest path to destruction."

And as I listened to Senator Kuehl proclaim that "the only constitutional right in the United States which is absolute . is your right to believe anything you want," and as I gazed at the portrait of George Washington, and as I thought about the solemn words, "the Senators Protect the Liberty of the Citizens," I couldn't help but think of an aide to George Washington by the name of James McHenry, who accompanied the General as they departed Independence Hall the day the Constitution was born. He recorded this encounter between Benjamin Franklin and a Mrs. Powell. She asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Answered Dr. Franklin, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

For this generation, that is no longer a hypothetical question. History warns us that to one generation in five falls the duty - the highest duty and the most difficult duty of this Republic - to preserve the liberty of the citizens. It is the most difficult, because as Lincoln warned, it is a threat that springs up not on a foreign shore where we can see it - it springs up amongst us. It cannot be defeated by force of arms. It must be defeated by reason.

Have you noticed yet, that ours is that generation? And how ironic it would be that the freedoms won with the blood of Washington's troops, and defended by so many who followed, should be voluntarily thrown away piece by piece by a generation that had become so dull and careless and pampered and uncaring that it lost the memory of freedom.

The Athenian Democracy had a word for "citizen" that survives in our language today. "Politikos." Politician. The Athenians believed that a free people who declare themselves citizens assume a duty to declare themselves politicians at the same time. It is time we took that responsibility very seriously.

In 1780, the tide had turned in the American Revolution, and the Founders began to sense the freedom that was within sight. John Adams wrote these words to his wife that spring. He said, "The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take the place of, indeed exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain."

Ladies and gentlemen, the debate is not about guns. It is about freedom. And the wheel has come full circle. Our generation must study politics that we may restore the liberty that our parents and grandparents expect us to pass on to our children and grandchildren.

If we fail, what history will demand of our children and grandchildren, in a society where their only right is to their own thoughts, is simply unthinkable. And be assured, history will find it unforgivable. A generation that is handed the most precious gift in all the universe - freedom - and throws it away -- deserves to be reviled by every generation that follows - and will be, even though the only right left to them is their own thoughts.

But if we succeed in this struggle, we will know the greatest joy of all - the joy of watching our grandchildren secure with the blessings of liberty, studying arts and literature in a free nation and under God's grace, once again.

Ladies and Gentlemen, isn't that worth devoting the rest of our lives to achieve?

Farah falls for Marxist Media Circus!

By William Cooper

Veritas News Service – Exclusive, July 11, 2001 – Joseph Farah displayed extreme gullibility in furthering the Marxist attack upon the Constitution in his front ranked column entitled Condit Unbecoming posted on WorldNetDaily July 11, 2001. Farah may have fallen into the emotional whirlwind created over the last 6 weeks by the socialist press, or he has not the slightest idea of the way our system of justice is supposed to work. In either case Farah, who pretends conservatism, is helping to create a consensus of public opinion that will further the socialist agenda of conviction in the press, show trial, conviction with the backing of the masses, and the imprisonment or execution that is sure to follow. It is the agenda of global socialism to install the old Soviet system worldwide in the New World Odor.

If you have a problem with this scenario please go to the Washington DC Police Department and ask for a list of reported missing persons, along with an accounting of what is being done about each. You will get the standard answer that you will get at every police department all across the nation, nothing. Why? Because there is no crime in having been reported missing.

Millions of People have been and always will be reported missing over the years in this country. Most of them are eventually found alive just having wanted to get away and engage in a new start. A small percentage are found to have committed suicide, become the victim of some crime, been involved in some crime, suffered illness or amnesia, or, have been the victim of murder. The last category, according to FBI statistics, is the smallest percentage of the lot.

Don’t get me wrong. I have absolutely no admiration or any other feelings for Gary Condit, Democrat, California. In my book he is just another scumbag socialist democrat politician that is engaged in systematically destroying our country; but I do have an absolute dedication to defending our Constitution, and the justice system it embodies, not necessarily the system that exists.

Gary Condit, a democrat, is being persecuted because he supported the Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. The persecution has been engineered by the same socialist machine that refused to condemn Clinton for all the moral and criminal abuses of the office of President, some of which is exactly the same as that leveled at Condit. In the process the socialists are mounting a frontal attack upon our traditional system of justice, individual Rights, and the Constitution that embodies and protects both. And because of that I have no choice but to fly to the aid of Gary Condit until a crime is legitimately discovered to have been committed.

So, where is the crime? Why is Levy, only one of the millions of missing persons, getting so much attention when 99% of all others are being ignored? Why, when no crime has been discovered, is Condit being persecuted by the press 24 hours of every day 7 days a week? How is it that a population, made up of many that are probably guilty of the same or similar sexual indiscretion, is screaming for Condit’s head when no crime has been discovered? How can anyone demand a warrantless search of Condit’s apartment when he has not been accused of any crime, and why would he allow it? Why would anyone want another to take a lie detector test, a procedure that is not allowed as evidence in any court because it has been proven to have been on so many occasions so utterly wrong in it’s conclusions, and why would anyone consent to take it? And finally, with no crime having been discovered, and with no DNA evidence connected to any crime, why would anyone ask Gary Condit to provide a DNA sample, and why would he even consider ever providing such a thing?

Until recently the DC police were operating according to legitimate practices. But now the police are bowing to the same emotional pressures that are being brought by the Marxist press against the American Sheople, and both are being led by the rings in their collective noses.

This case is a very loud echo of the justice that was meted out in the old Soviet Union and that exists in every other Marxist or communist country on this Earth. First, accusation and conviction in the government press, a show trial, and then imprisonment or execution usually without any convincing evidence whatsoever. The whole process made possible by democracy, the demands of the cattle, the herd, the Sheople, the ignorant, easily manipulated emotional masses spurred on by voices patterned after the Soviet Pravda.

If a legitimate crime is ever discovered to have been committed against Ms. Levy and Gary Condit is a legitimate suspect, I will support the efforts of the police, not the press, to find and charge a suspect, and an American Jury to determine guilt. Until then I demand that all of you shut your ignorant stupid collective emotional puppet mouths.

I would expect a man who claims to have a brain, who professes to be a conservative, who also professes to support and defend the justice system, individual Rights, and our Constitution, to be able to see through this charade and expose it. Instead I see that Joseph Farah is traveling right along with the deception. I have watched Farah engage in this kind of two-faced, forked-tongued tactic for the last two years. Has Joseph Farah been duped or is he a part of the deception? Is this all part of the Hegelian dialectic that is so effectively being worked against the American People? Do we as a nation really want to follow in the murderous footsteps of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler (yes, Hitler was a socialist), and Castro?

Condit Unbecoming

Sharon Calls Arafat,
'Head of a Gang of Terrorists'

"Getting Sharon's record out in the open might even persuade the Israelis to re-examine their compulsive habit of voting for war criminals." - Ahmed Amr

Sharon's Willing Media Collaborators

By Ahmed Amr

Veritas News Service -- July 1, 2001 -- The BBC just aired a documentary about Sabra and Shatila that should have been made two decades ago. Not surprisingly, the conclusion is that Ariel Sharon should be indicted for war crimes. In London, the Israeli press attache, David Schneeweiss, protested. "We've been in touch with the BBC at all levels to find out what the programme's about. One has to question why they are focusing on old news. These events happened 20 years ago." (Brian Whitaker, The Guardian, Friday June 15, 2001).

Predictably, The BBC has come under a full frontal assault by pro-Israeli apologists for a Panorama program, The Accused, that aired on Sunday, June 17, 2001. There is good reason for panic among Israeli officials and their international public relations support team, which includes blunt instruments like the New York Times and CNN. This could be the start of the final chapter in the long struggle to bring Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to justice for his war crimes in Sabra and Shatila and Qibya. It comes at a time when a Belgian court is diligently probing into Sharon's criminal past. Europe has had enough of this monster act. It will not be long before Americans get wind of how deranged this man really is.

It is worth noting, for the benefit of Israeli press attaches, that the Associated Press was awarded the Pulitzer Prize (2000) for a series of reports that uncovered details of mass killing by U.S. soldiers of hundreds of Korean civilians at No Gun Ri in July 1950. In accepting the prize the AP reporters offered praised to "the Korean survivors who would not let their quest for truth die." Just a few months ago the New York Times made a big splash by revealing that in 1969 Ex-Senator Bob Kerrey was involved in atrocities against civilians in the Village of Thanh Phong. Kerrey, In a CBS interview was candid enough to say that "to describe it as an atrocity, I would say, is pretty close to being right, because that's how it felt, and that's why I feel guilt and shame for it."

To this day, the Israelis and their mass media pals waste no effort to sanitize Sharon's bloody resume. Details of the war crimes committed by this serial mass murderer are buried in the 'old news' archives. Well, Kerrey's news was a decade older than Sabra and Shatila and the slaughter of Koreans at No Gun Ri took place half a century ago, three years prior to Qibya. As any high school kid can tell any Israeli press attaché, Nazi war criminals, many in their nineties, are still liable for crimes committed during World War II. When it comes to war crimes there are no statutes of limitations and there are no exemptions for Israeli nationals, even Prime Ministers.

Perhaps due to the magnitude of the slaughter, this BBC Panorama documentary focused on Sabra and Shatila. But the details of the war crime at Qibya make an even stronger case for indicting Ariel Sharon. At Qibya, Sharon was on site supervising the Israeli soldiers who did the killing.

To quote from an earlier article: "The slaughter at Qibya, a West Bank village outside Jerusalem, took place on October 14, 1953. A contingent of 600 Israeli troops, led by Ariel Sharon, using explosives, blew up a whole village, killing every single Palestinian inhabitant. Every man, every woman and every child was murdered in cold blood. There were other similar incidents involving Sharon's notorious "Unit 101" through out the 1950s... The thing about the slaughter at Qibya, is Sharon has no alibis. Israeli Forces under his command, in his presence and with his explicit orders carried out the massacre. He slaughtered those innocent villagers with malicious intent as part of Israel's long-standing policy to sanction massive acts of vengeance against unarmed 'enemy' civilians. His work at Qibya was deliberately and callously calibrated to insure the highest possible number of casualties."

While the details of the atrocities at No Gun Ri and Thanh Phong were known to only a select few and had to be 'dug' up by investigative journalists, any New York Times or Washington Post journalist can find out about Sharon by tuning in to see the BBC. Not likely. The ethnics at Sulzberger's daily ruse are not about to rehash the past of their favorite war criminal. A search of their vaunted archives, going all the way back to 1996, turns up one reference to Qibya. Not surprisingly it was a white wash by William A. Orme Jr (Warrior Who Confounds - Ariel Sharon, NYT. 2/7/2001). In a previous article, 'The Stain On the Press', we exposed Orme's public relations work for his Qibya client. The boys on 43rd street are used to getting away with this kind of nonsense. Covering up Israeli war crimes is just another day's work for the gray lady, which is currently celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of going to court to publish the Pentagon papers. Bob Kerrey must be eating his heart out and wishing he was Yiddish too.

Sharon's past is catching up with him. It will be interesting to see how long the mass media in America can continue to ignore the BBC and Belgian tribunals. As usual the only defense available to the Israel Firsters is that the BBC is anti-Semitic. To their credit, the BBC has not backed out of airing the program. Ted Turner's 'Global Minute', a new CNN feature that should be called '60 Seconds', will no doubt have time constraints that prevent including 'old news' of Sharon's crimes. Expect The New York Times to stick to a tradition of exposing ex-Senators while continuing to worship at the altar of sacred Israeli mass murderers.

Sharon needs to be brought to justice and soon. We should all applaud the efforts of the BBC and the Belgian courts for doing their part to expose the bloody record of this Israeli Prime Minister. Aside from Qibya and Sabra and Shatila, he should also be tried for the indiscriminate bombardment of Beirut in 1982, resulting in tens of thousands of innocent civilian casualties, his campaign against Gaza in 1971, the murder of Egyptian POWs in 1956 and the use of collective punishment against the Palestinians in the occupied territories. His most recent war crime, the attack by an F16 against a prison in occupied Nablus that resulted in eleven fatalities, is just one additional entry in a rap sheet that is a mile long,

Sharon's indictment would serve a number of purposes. It would deliver justice to his victims and prevent him from committing additional crimes Getting Sharon's record out in the open might even persuade the Israelis to re-examine their compulsive habit of voting for war criminals. For Americans, it will expose the incredible deception the mass media machine is capable of in the name of Israel. As an additional benefit, the Congressmen and Senators who have heaped praise on Sharon will be seen for what they are; a breed of men who would dine with a mass murderer, so long as he reaches for the check after the meal.

Sharon's apologists should be exposed along with Sharon. The American journalists and politicians who openly embrace him should have to answer the question: "what did you know about Qibya and when did you know it?" It is not enough to worry about Sharon, it is time to seriously worry about the mass media machine that markets war criminals as 'Grand Pa Sharon' just waiting to rock Colin Powell on his knees. One needs to worry about an American Jewish community that coddles war criminals; even as they demand compensation for German war crimes. That Israelis elected Sharon because of his 'talents', should also raise serious concerns about the racist and belligerent attitudes of an Israel that has drifted from the right to the extreme right. Those journalists, like Deborah Sontag, Thomas Friedman and William Safire, who have collaborated in the project to sanitize Sharon, should be held in contempt. Their collaboration was no simple passive act; given that they were well aware of Sharon's past. Delaying justice for those who suffered at Sharon's hands at Qibya has allowed other innocents to fall into his murderous clutches. Sharon is a repeat offender because of repeat cover-ups by a complicit group of American 'journalists' who seem to relish the prospect of more Palestinian victims. Justice demands that they explain their motives for collaborating with this monster.

Olives of Aboud

"Just outside a village, there were two giant American-built Caterpillar bulldozers slowly devouring the olive trees." - Israel Shamir

by Israel Shamir

Veritas News Service -- July 1, 2001 -- As the CIA-brokered cease fire went into effect, I received an anxious call from a village of Aboud, on the western slopes of Samarian hills. The village was raided by the army, and two men were shot. Today I went there, to see the village and to feel the cease fire.

Aboud is surrounded by the new Jewish settlements from all sides. A good new Jewish road leads to the area. It forks off to Aboud some three miles away from the village, and there the road is blocked by cyclopean heaps of earth. We try our luck at the other end, with the same result. Eventually we found a narrow dirt track the peasants broke in this morning, and drive in.

Aboud is one of the prettiest Palestinian villages, strongly reminiscent of Toscana. Its time-mellowed stone houses grow on the gentle hills. Vine climbs up their balconies, leafy fig trees provide shadow to its streets. The prosperity of a well-established village is seen in the spaciousness of the mansions, in the meticulously clean roads. The old men sit in a small and shady walled enclosure, on the stone benches, as the aldermen of Ithaca gathered by young Telemachus. That is the biblical 'gate of the city', or a diwan. Kids bring them coffee and fresh fruits. Local people are not the refugees of Gaza and Deheishe; here, as in a time warp, one can see the Holy Land as it should and could be.

Three millennia old Aboud received the faith of Christ from Christ himself, says the local tradition, and there is the church ready to prove it, one of the oldest on earth, built in the days of Constantine in the 4th century, or maybe even older, as some archaeologists claim. The church is a dainty thing, carefully restored and well taken care of. The Byzantine capitols of its columns bear the image of cross and palm branches. Recently discovered plaque in old Aramaic script immured in the southern wall of the church.

Aboud has more than one church: there is a Catholic, a Greek Orthodox and an American-built Church of God. There is also a new mosque, as Christians and Moslems of the Holy Land live together in great harmony. On 17th of December all of them, the Moslems and the Christians, go to venerate the village patron saint, St Barbara. She was a local girl who fell in love with a young Christian and was baptized. It happened in the rough days of Roman emperor Diocletian, and she was martyred in the persecutions. The ruins of the oldest Byzantine church of St Barbara are still seen on a hill a mile away from the village. At the foothill, there is her burial cave, and there the peasants lit their candles and ask their wishes to be fulfilled.

It is a good place to understand the complete lunacy of the prevailing Jewish narrative, of the 'land without people' sparsely inhabited by the Arab nomads who came in the 7th century. Archaeologists proved this village was never destroyed or abandoned since the times immemorial, and our eyes agree with it. Age-old olive trees cover the hills, confirming the deep roots of Aboud and providing it with olive oil, its main staple food and source of livelihood.

Just outside a village, there were two giant American-built Caterpillar bulldozers slowly devouring the olive trees. They were huge, covered from every side by armour plates. They appeared impregnable, like moving fortresses. They towered above the landscape as the mechanical monsters of Evil Empire attacking Ewocks in the Star Wars.

The peasants stood on the heaps of earth blocking the entrance to the village and looked at the machines destroying their livelihood. They could not walk towards them, as they were not allowed to leave their village, their prison. There was a tent, and a few soldiers with a machinegun on the hill above the entrance, and they were there to keep the people in. Last night, on Sabbath eve, they opened fire on the villagers who ventured out, and wounded two men. The rest run back in for safety. Then the army went in, in their jeeps, driving through the village, met by stones of the kids. The Jewish settlers and soldiers sprayed windows and roofs with their bullets and drove away, apparently feeling their Shabbat duty fulfilled.

I could cross the invisible line, as it was for the Palestinians only. There was an Israeli officer in a jeep, a wide American Hummer, who oversaw the devastation. Why do you do it, I asked, don't you know there is the cease fire? Say it to Arik (Sharon), he replied, we are just following orders. But he, and the other soldiers, and the bulldozer drivers were not despondent about these orders. These age-old trees meant nothing to them, as the village and two millennia old Church, and the people meant nothing to them, just something to be destroyed.

Palestine never was the deserted land the first Zionists claimed they found at their arrival. But it surely will become one, unless we stop these machines.

Israel Shamir is an Israeli writer and journalist, living in Jaffa. His other articles can be found on his site He can be emailed at


[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]

  Home | 
   © 1999-2002, HOTT All rights reserved.